Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who now works to advocate for radical “voting rights” legislation, argued that the United States Senate should sidestep filibuster rules in order to pass HR1. The legislation that passed the House of Representatives would implement a complete overhaul of the electoral system, while using taxpayer dollars to fund Democratic campaigns; the bill has been condemned as unconstitutional by a group of state Attorneys General and has minimal Republican support.
Abrams incorrectly cited the Constitution’s elections clause while arguing that the Senate should ignore filibuster procedure, which would require 10 Republicans to vote for the bill.
"I don't believe that it's necessary to wholly eliminate the filibuster to accomplish the purposes of passing these bills," Abrams said on Sunday. "The elections clause in the Constitution guarantees that the Congress alone has the power to regulate the time, manner and place of elections. That is a power that is sacrosanct."
Stacey Abrams uses the Constitution to explain why voting rights legislation should be exempt from the filibuster. #SOTU pic.twitter.com/lcbdxdwp1A
— Sarah Reese Jones (@PoliticusSarah) March 14, 2021
The actual text of the elections clause puts the jurisdiction over the "time, places, and manner" of elections with state legislatures, while giving Congress the power to pass regulations, as Abrams failed to point out.
Recommended
The legislation is unlikely to garner support from GOP lawmakers in order to overcome the 60-vote filibuster threshold, despite the hopes of left-wing activists.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member